Tom has a good post on the meeting at Jennifer Horn’s home last night – and that house was packed! TMEW and I both attended – and no, we were not the folks who traveled the furthest to be in attendance. Even though we are in District 1 and will be voting for Frank Guinta, I saw it as a "must" opportunity to give Mr. Bass my concerns from the Conservative side of the Republican Party.
He tried to make his points, as Tom pointed out. Normally, I would have video’d the meeting so that you, our readers, could make up your own minds without the filter of impressions of others (including my own). Fortunately (or not, depending on your point of view), we were asked not to (even Charlie mentioned the aspect of being YouTube’d in an unflattering matter with such a crowd).
Most of the folks were concerned – very concerned, and they let Charlie know of that concern in no uncertain terms. Topics ranged from abortion to Cap N Trade to illegal immigration to taxes to Obamacare to….well, you get the message (did Charlie?). In each aspect of their question, what shown was the message of "smaller government, smaller footprint, less interference in our lives, and stop taking choices away from us." They want Government to be in the background and "out of their face", wagging its finger in their faces at almost every turn. They are very concerned that the tipping point is upon us – or perhaps past us. Uppermost was "has the US devolved into a Socialist Democracy where Government is preeminent rather than us?"
They know Ann McLane Kuster’s stances as being a hard Left Progressive (even as her TV commercials portray her as trying to be much more moderate). They also seemed to be in agreement in that they too, believe that while Carol Shea-Porter may not be the brightest bulb in the box, McKluster (as Steve dubs her) has much more firepower at her command. He also tried to make the case that she, unlike Paul Hodes, can develop a rapport with folks in the District (which leans more liberal with more Independents registrations than Democrat, which in turn are more than Republican) which would make it rather difficult to dislodge her in 2012 if she becomes the winner in 2010. Making the claim that Republicans have to stay united because the race is so close in his district (polls range from a 2% – 4% advantage for him, but within the Margin Of Error, MOE), folks have to vote for him "for the sake of the District, not for him personally). He also appealed to the crowd, saying that since the Democrats will find her much more appealing as a candidate than Paul Hodes or Arnie Arnesen (both being flawed candidates in his mind), it cannot be seen as a Republican district.
Really?
As I expected, he trotted out his record that would have appealed to this audience. It seemed like some were persuaded, some acknowledged that for the sake of getting the Dems out, the clothespins may well come out (and placed upon noses at voting time). But, there were many that seemed still looking at other aspects of his record that seemed off-putting.
One line of argument he tried that I found, um, puzzling was that one that imputed that because his race was so close, it was possible that the Democrats would hold the US House if he lost his race. I wish someone had been taping the event – no, not of him, but of me, for the look on my face upon hearing this probably was priceless (at the expense of a camera lens, I suppose). By all accounts from the pundits and pollsters, it seems to be a huge wind at most Republicans’ backs (and that was pointed out too; why did most NH Repubs have that wind yet Charlie did not?) to ask NOT if the Repubs will wrest control of the US House back, but rather, by how much? I have no idea why Charlie tried that line of reasoning – not a clue, for these folks are not the ordinary voter off the street – they are involved and they are knowledgeable; I doubt that this was convincing.
I did have my chance during the meeting to address Charlie and I brought up that while McKluster is touting her Progressive leanings, he too, self-identified as a Progressive (in fact, his father started the Progressive Republican movement). He was not impressed when I further gave my two word definition of Progressivism:
Incremental Socialism
but the crowd did – his face visibly reddened. Simply put, I asked: folks have the choice between a Progressive and a, well, a Progressive. Progressives are the reason for the malaise that we find ourselves in economically and from a governance view. Both sides of the aisle Progressives are a danger to our Republic. Part of my political calculus is that the US House is going to be swept by Repubs, and if elected, Kuster will effectively be neutered. She she can speak and claim the moonbattery prize; and be easily booted out in two more years with a Conservative. The same could not be made for a Republican Progressive that has gone "conservative’. Sure, I made the example of Jeb Bradley, who being known for being a moderate when in Congress, has made the change and has served (thus far) as a solidly Conservative vote in the NH Senate. But will Charlie? Moderate is one thing, but what evidence do we have that a Progressive can quickly become a true Conservative on a dime?
I received part of my answer after the "formal" part of the meeting. Two questions on Cap N Trade were asked during the formal part. One lady standing next to me was scared of the taxes and the expense that it would have brought – can you assure us, given your involvement in Green Energy, that you will not vote for any Cap N Trade. His answer was that the Waxman Cap N Trade bill was very flawed and he would have voted against it.
I found his answer (in full), well, curious – in fact, nuanced and couched in politicalese weasel words.
Leigh McNeil (candidate for NH House) asked a follow up; would Charlie be willing to vote against the Government picking ‘winners and losers’, given his involvement in alternative energy? Would he be against favoring one sector, one industry, one company over another with Government money or preferences? Charlie launched into a discussion of IRS / tax laws, this and that and other things, finally saying that he’d be for a bill that would level the playing field.
Both the questioners and Charlie missed the boat. They asked about the symptom – what was Government doing. They missed the disease: Is This The Proper Role of Government?
I ended up with Charlie afterwards and told him:
- he deserved some kudos for coming into the Lion’s Den (Lioness?)
- I didn’t believe that he answered the fundamental question (above).
It took a while, and I won’t bore you with more details, but suffice it to say that he tried to go off on tangents in an effort to not answer my question. Each time he wandered off, I told him, point blank, "You didn’t answer the question". At the very end, I headed him off at the pass and flat out asked, given the number of attempts at pointing out how Government eliminate choices (incandescent light bulbs, CAFE standards) for a purportedly free people, is that the proper role of government, to tell the governed how to act? Please understand, we were not talking emergency situations, or fighting for the very life of our country in a military sense, we were talking about ordinary life.
He finally admitted, that in some cases (yet undefined, it was getting late) it was a proper role of government to tell people what to do and how to live their lives.
Sigh. A Progressive, indeed. It probably is a good thing that I cannot vote in his District. For with that answer, they in the District truly have to decide between a Progressive…and a Progressive.
And not one Constitutionalist, Liberty and Freedom choice between the pair.
Like I said, I’m luck – I’ve got a choice with a Constitutional loving, Liberty and Freedom Frank Guinta and pinhead Carol Che-Porter. Beware; I’ve got a vote and I know how to use it!
